I am reminded with some frequency that the term “Denier” is offensive. I am aware of that. Why does no one raise the question of whether the term is accurate? Shouldn’t that be the real question?

This question keeps coming up and in returning to it I will not simply be rehashing the same old arguments. Rather I hope to demonstrate that there are solid political reasons to use the term Denier when it is accurate and appropriate.

 It’s not that simple
 Leaving “skeptics” and “deniers”
 The politics of naming
 It’s an ugly word

What if climate change / global warning Deniers1 (as opposed to doubters or skeptics) had been around in 1775? No, this is not a cheap way to try and cast climate change scientists as revolutionary heroes, but rather a serious way to reveal some truths about the Denier arguments.

What I have done below is take some of the popular Denier arguments and substitute an appropriate Revolutionary War reference. Have a look at them (compare to actual Denier myths)

.

Climate “Skeptics” get debunked on Skeptics Society site

In what can only be described as delicious irony the Skeptics Society has published a debunking of the ghastly Oregon Petition. The Oregon Petition is the source of the fraudulent claim that (variously) 32,000, 17,000 or 60,000 scientists reject climate science. Misleading by Petition Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming? looks at the petition as a petition with no reference to whether it’s scientific claims are valid or not. He concludes:

There is no question that people are very interested in and concerned about species such as pandas, polar bears, penguins and similar species under threat from anthropogenic climate change.

Watching various social networking sites you can see articles about these species quickly become ‘popular’ as they are variously noted, dugg, hugged, buzzed, stumbled, etc (ie voted for by other members). At the same time articles about climate science, educating about climate change, and climate policy generally languish with little attention paid to them.

The course is clear! Spencer must put the full paper, as submitted, and with the reviewers and editors comments on-line to reveal the gross perfidity and vile machinations of the GLR. There can be no other way but to reveal the rot of this pestilent conspiracy to the light of day! Expose the jackbooted thugs of the scientific kleptocracy to public opprobrium. Seriously, but more below.